Why doesn't NYC have a solid independent station?

[Mark_Ericson]

> Let me restate the question: How will WMBC-DT be able
> to cover Newton from a transmitter near Paterson?

According to the maps, they do. And that's all the FCC cares about.

Actually, the transmitter "near Paterson" is actually on a mountain, the name of which slips my mind, that is also home to WNJN-50/51, which I assume would have some kind of presence in Newton.

- Trip<P ID="signature">______________
Visit my website, www.rabbitears.info! It's eventually going to be your one resource for television info! Digital television, histories, and technical information for the entire USA from one source!</P>

 

[Harold]

> > Let me restate the question: How will WMBC-DT be able
> > to cover Newton from a transmitter near Paterson?
>
> According to the maps, they do. And that's all the FCC
> cares about.
>
> Actually, the transmitter "near Paterson" is actually on a
> mountain, the name of which slips my mind, that is also home
> to WNJN-50/51, which I assume would have some kind of
> presence in Newton.
>
> - Trip
>

Hmmm...I don't know what happened to my other post but
here's a reprise.

The New Jersey Public Broadcasting tower is on the
campus of Montlair State University, but I believe
that portion of the campus is in Little Falls. The
state felt it necessary to put a Channel 35 translator
near Sussex Borough in order to serve that part of
northwestern New Jersey. Sussex County is in the
foothills of the Appalachin Mountains. Signals from
the east have a very hard time making it to that
area.

Maps, including those on the FCC Web site, are only
rough approximations and often do not reflect reality.
The area circumscribed by the WMBC-DT idealized signal
coverage area is nearly a circle. Clearly this doesn't
reflect the reality of the terrain in the area.

The FCC has to be concerned about something else as far
as both Mountain Broadcasting and Family Radio. Both
licensees were given frequency set aside by the commission
to alleviate the chronic absence of television broadcast
coverage in northern New Jersey. In several years WMBC-TV
on Channel 63 will go off and the digital transmitter will
be it. You can't serve your community of license with a
transmitter that is located so far away.

It is time that broadcasters had their feet put to the
fire and be made to fulfill the requirements of the
license given to them by the public.

 

[cawasinnj]

> Maps, including those on the FCC Web site, are only
> rough approximations and often do not reflect reality.

Correct. But the point that you seem to be missing is that REALITY DOESN'T MATTER. The theorectical contour that the map shows is the ONLY thing that matters as far as whether the FCC will approve something. It's sad, but that's the way it is right now. Again, see the argument over KNTV in San Jose. Much of San Jose can't actually see the darn thing, but since they should theoretically be able to see it, that's ok.

 

[Harold]

> > Maps, including those on the FCC Web site, are only
> > rough approximations and often do not reflect reality.
>
> Correct. But the point that you seem to be missing is that
> REALITY DOESN'T MATTER. The theorectical contour that the
> map shows is the ONLY thing that matters as far as whether
> the FCC will approve something. It's sad, but that's the
> way it is right now. Again, see the argument over KNTV in
> San Jose. Much of San Jose can't actually see the darn
> thing, but since they should theoretically be able to see
> it, that's ok.
>

What you don't seem to realize is that for the final
arbiter on such matters...the courts...reality DOES
count..a whole lot. Either they cover the area for
which they are responsible..or they don't. If reality
didn't matter then chief engineers would have been
freed from the responsibility of periodically doing
proofs on their antenna patterns.

Can you point me toward something in the FCC regulations
that indicates that "theoretical" contour patterns are
sufficient in awarding a license, construction permit,
etc.?

 

[cawasinnj]

> What you don't seem to realize is that for the final
> arbiter on such matters...the courts...reality DOES
> count..a whole lot.

What are you talking about? The courts have nothing to do with this. This is an FCC regulatory matter, not a matter of law.


> Either they cover the area for
> which they are responsible..or they don't. If reality
> didn't matter then chief engineers would have been
> freed from the responsibility of periodically doing
> proofs on their antenna patterns.

What makes you think they don't?


> Can you point me toward something in the FCC regulations
> that indicates that "theoretical" contour patterns are
> sufficient in awarding a license, construction permit,
> etc.?

73.313.a
All predictions of coverage made pursuant to this section shall
be made without regard to interference and shall be made only on the
basis of estimated field strengths.

This ties in with 73.315.a
The transmitter location shall be chosen so that, on the basis
of the effective radiated power and antenna height above average terrain
employed, a minimum field strength of 70 dB above one uV/m (dBu), or
3.16 mV/m, will be provided over the entire principal community to be
served.

 

[KERCAlum]

> Philly also doesn't have a solid indy. D.C. doesn't
> either. I don't know of any East coast markets with them,
> except for the occasional rimshot like WLNY, WFMZ and
> WNDS/WZMY, that don't exactly count if they air first run
> programming that is also seen in the main city. Low
> powered stations don't count in my opinion either.

Neither does the Dallas/Fort Worth market. Out of 14 stations (KDTN/2, KDFW/4, KXAS/5, WFAA/8, KTVT/11, KERA/13, KTXA/21, KUVN/23, KDFI/27, KDAF/33, KXTX/39, KSTR/49, KFWD/52, KPXD/68), only two are considered independent (27 and 52). The rest are affiliated with a network of some sort (from the top: Daystar, FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, UPN, Univision, WB, Telemundo, TeleFutura, PAX/I). And of those two, only KFWD/52 is a "true" independent, because KDFI/27 is owned by FOX.

And I don't count the LPTVs either, of which there are probably about eight or ten in the D/FW market.

Let's face it, the days of the true independent TV station are probably over, thanks to consolidation, lax ownership rules, and LMAs. <P ID="signature">______________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." - Robert Heinlein

dan</P>

 

[Harold]

> > What you don't seem to realize is that for the final
> > arbiter on such matters...the courts...reality DOES
> > count..a whole lot.
>
> What are you talking about? The courts have nothing to do
> with this. This is an FCC regulatory matter, not a matter
> of law.
>
>
> > Either they cover the area for
> > which they are responsible..or they don't. If reality
> > didn't matter then chief engineers would have been
> > freed from the responsibility of periodically doing
> > proofs on their antenna patterns.
>
> What makes you think they don't?
>
>
> > Can you point me toward something in the FCC regulations
> > that indicates that "theoretical" contour patterns are
> > sufficient in awarding a license, construction permit,
> > etc.?
>
> 73.313.a
> All predictions of coverage made pursuant to this section
> shall
> be made without regard to interference and shall be made
> only on the
> basis of estimated field strengths.
>
> This ties in with 73.315.a
> The transmitter location shall be chosen so that, on the
> basis
> of the effective radiated power and antenna height above
> average terrain
> employed, a minimum field strength of 70 dB above one uV/m
> (dBu), or
> 3.16 mV/m, will be provided over the entire principal
> community to be
> served.
>

You wrote, "What are you talking about? The courts have
nothing to do with this. This is an FCC regulatory matter,
not a matter of law."

In our form of government the citizens are entitled to
bring matters before the courts. The courts are entitled
to review the decisions of Congress and the executive
branch as well as those regulatory agencies included
within the executive branch. As much as you might dislike
it, the FCC is responsible for the consequences of its
decisions. It is not the final word. Case books are
replete with decisions made in review of FCC actions.

"Estimated field strengths" are not the same as "theoretical
contours." Fill us in on what tools a licensee must use to
develop an estimate. An estimate of auto repairs is based
on an assessment of the damaged car and a check on the
cost of repair parts. A body shop doesn't base estimates
on theories.

Leaving aside the obscure, the point is that WMBC is
required to serve northwestern New Jersey. The best
location for a transmitter to fulfill that requirement
is not Little Falls. WMBC wants to become a New York
City broadcaster. The citizens of New Jersey should not
let that happen.

 

[cawasinnj]

> You wrote, "What are you talking about? The courts have
> nothing to do with this. This is an FCC regulatory matter,
> not a matter of law."
>
> In our form of government the citizens are entitled to
> bring matters before the courts. The courts are entitled
> to review the decisions of Congress and the executive
> branch as well as those regulatory agencies included
> within the executive branch. As much as you might dislike
> it, the FCC is responsible for the consequences of its
> decisions. It is not the final word. Case books are
> replete with decisions made in review of FCC actions.

When you figure out the difference between civil and criminal law, let me know.

 

[Harold]

> > You wrote, "What are you talking about? The courts have
> > nothing to do with this. This is an FCC regulatory
> matter,
> > not a matter of law."
> >
> > In our form of government the citizens are entitled to
> > bring matters before the courts. The courts are entitled
> > to review the decisions of Congress and the executive
> > branch as well as those regulatory agencies included
> > within the executive branch. As much as you might dislike
> > it, the FCC is responsible for the consequences of its
> > decisions. It is not the final word. Case books are
> > replete with decisions made in review of FCC actions.
>
> When you figure out the difference between civil and
> criminal law, let me know.
>

Hmmmm. I must say that this is one of the most bizarre
responses I have gotten on this, or any other forum for
that matter. I know well the difference between civil
and criminal law. If you are deficient in that matter
there are wonderful resources right here on the Internet
to bring you up to speed.

What about my basic description of judicial review of
executive decisions baffled you? See: Marbury v.
Madison.

 

[cawasinnj]

> Hmmmm. I must say that this is one of the most bizarre
> responses I have gotten on this, or any other forum for
> that matter. I know well the difference between civil
> and criminal law. If you are deficient in that matter
> there are wonderful resources right here on the Internet
> to bring you up to speed.

Obviously we're confusing each other. I simply don't understand this bizarre mix of law that seems to exist in your world. If you like, you can consider yourself the winner here and I'll raise the white flag.


> What about my basic description of judicial review of
> executive decisions baffled you? See: Marbury v.
> Madison.

Likewise I have no idea how that's relevant.

You can make an argument that the license of WMBC can be challenged, but they aren't doing anything more objectionable than other stations on the dial all over the country.

If you have a beef with anyone, it's with the FCC for renewing the license of someone who doesn't serve the community of license.

 

[toby]

> You can make an argument that the license of WMBC can be
> challenged, but they aren't doing anything more
> objectionable than other stations on the dial all over the
> country.
>
> If you have a beef with anyone, it's with the FCC for
> renewing the license of someone who doesn't serve the
> community of license.

That could be that hardly anyone knows the station even exists and that is most likely due to its "international programing" which serves hardly anyone in the COL.<P ID="signature">______________
WCBS = We're Crazy Buffoons and Schmucks
<a href=http://chuck.spotteddogs.org/tv/>Spotted Dog TV Talk - for all your non-news TV Talk</a></P>

 

[Harold]

> > You can make an argument that the license of WMBC can be
> > challenged, but they aren't doing anything more
> > objectionable than other stations on the dial all over the
>
> > country.
> >
> > If you have a beef with anyone, it's with the FCC for
> > renewing the license of someone who doesn't serve the
> > community of license.
>
> That could be that hardly anyone knows the station even
> exists and that is most likely due to its "international
> programing" which serves hardly anyone in the COL.
>

Thanks toby. I know that at least one person gets it.
You're exactly right. WMBC not only has the obligation
other TV stations have to serve their community of
license but also must live up to the F.C.C.'s original
intention in dropped Channel 63 into northwestern New
Jersey. That intention was that the station satisfy
the needs of citizens who were being greatly underserved
by the stations in New York City. Chinese and Korean
programming just doesn't do that.

Thanks again.

 

[cawasinnj]

> Thanks toby. I know that at least one person gets it.
> You're exactly right. WMBC not only has the obligation
> other TV stations have to serve their community of
> license but also must live up to the F.C.C.'s original
> intention in dropped Channel 63 into northwestern New
> Jersey.

Oh is THAT what you have your knickers in a bunch about? Jeez.

Ok, here's the problem with that. There are hundreds of stations all over the country that are doing the exact same thing. The most well known examples are the home shopping stations that air porcelain dogs and Thighmasters all day, except for a 3 hour block somewhere that satisfies the childrens programming requirement. See Shop at Home's WSAH. What about WRNN with it's all-infomercial-almost-all-the-time format? Should we yank their licenses too?

The FCC established a long time ago that they only minimally track what stations air. In other words, if you meet the basic criteria, you don't have a problem. Is this the best thing for the viewing public? I doubt it. Is that the way things are now? Yes. Should we examine the issues and see if the rules for *all* stations should be changed? Sure, but the garbage on the big boys stations needs to be addressed as well.

 

[Harold]

> > Thanks toby. I know that at least one person gets it.
> > You're exactly right. WMBC not only has the obligation
> > other TV stations have to serve their community of
> > license but also must live up to the F.C.C.'s original
> > intention in dropped Channel 63 into northwestern New
> > Jersey.
>
> Oh is THAT what you have your knickers in a bunch about?
> Jeez.
>
> Ok, here's the problem with that. There are hundreds of
> stations all over the country that are doing the exact same
> thing. The most well known examples are the home shopping
> stations that air porcelain dogs and Thighmasters all day,
> except for a 3 hour block somewhere that satisfies the
> childrens programming requirement. See Shop at Home's WSAH.
> What about WRNN with it's
> all-infomercial-almost-all-the-time format? Should we yank
> their licenses too?
>
> The FCC established a long time ago that they only minimally
> track what stations air. In other words, if you meet the
> basic criteria, you don't have a problem. Is this the best
> thing for the viewing public? I doubt it. Is that the way
> things are now? Yes. Should we examine the issues and see
> if the rules for *all* stations should be changed? Sure,
> but the garbage on the big boys stations needs to be
> addressed as well.
>


"Knickers!!???" How old are you? Ninty-five??

I elucidated my position in my posts of a week
or more ago. Go back and read them and you'll
understand...maybe.

Somewhere in human history somebody developed
the defense that if someone does something wrong
it isn't wrong if others are doing it too.
That's dangerous thinking, of course, and has
taken some otherwise decent people into the
depths of depravity because they believed that
whatever heinous act was being committed it was
OK because their friends and neighbors were doing
it too. Riots work that way. Sadly, genocides do
as well. Public apathy is fueled by the foolish
notion that things can't be changed.

The FCC's lack of enforcement is not..repeat..not
an excuse to violate both the letter and spirit of
the law. In the case of Channel 63, the station
has not been freed from the obligation to fill the
absence of local broadcast service in northwestern
New Jersey. You might not like it, but then the
world doesn't revolve around your interpretation
of the law.

 

[cawasinnj]

> "Knickers!!???" How old are you? Ninty-five??

Considerably less. Apparently you're too young to have heard the phrase.


> I elucidated my position in my posts of a week
> or more ago. Go back and read them and you'll
> understand...maybe.

I've read them. Your problem is that the regulations do not say what you think they say. Maybe they should, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.


> Somewhere in human history somebody developed
> the defense that if someone does something wrong
> it isn't wrong if others are doing it too.

Thank you. Finally something I can agree with.

 

[Harold]

> > "Knickers!!???" How old are you? Ninty-five??
>
> Considerably less. Apparently you're too young to have
> heard the phrase.
>
>
> > I elucidated my position in my posts of a week
> > or more ago. Go back and read them and you'll
> > understand...maybe.
>
> I've read them. Your problem is that the regulations do not
> say what you think they say. Maybe they should, but that is
> irrelevant to this discussion.
>
>
> > Somewhere in human history somebody developed
> > the defense that if someone does something wrong
> > it isn't wrong if others are doing it too.
>
> Thank you. Finally something I can agree with.
>


No...Boys didn't wear knickers when I was
growing up.

You wrote, "Your problem is that the regulations
do not say what you think they say."

The obligations on WMBC and WFME didn't arise
from regulations. It was the circumstances
and statements made by the commission during the
reallocation of those channels from Pennsylvania
to New Jersey.